Printable View
This is a link to a summary of the Scottish study which has prompted the review of the law in Scotland: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0404221858.htm To read the full study you'd need a subscription to the veterinary record.
And of course animal welfare groups are opposed to amending the law: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...elfare_groups/
Also, I erred in that the the quote study in the Canadian Veterinary Medical Assn was not from the Scottish study. It was from Diesel G, Pfeiffer D, Crispin S, et al. Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain. Vet Rec 2010;166:812-817. It can be accessed here: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...PnI4Rw&cad=rja
There also is an Swedish study of tail injuries in German Shorthaired Pointers: http://www.cdb.org/countries/sweden.htm
The reporting of that research has always been flawed. In fact, there are two separate papers, and most reports on this stress the results of the first and ignore the results of the second.
The first was a survey of owners, which is not a "study" at all. It relies on accurate self-reporting from a community known to be strongly opposed to the law. And the results, finding that over half of undocked spaniels suffered tail injuries in a single season, simply beggar belief.
The followup study confirms that the survey numbers are fishy. Here's the money quote:
To prevent one such tail injury in these working breeds around 232 dogs would need to be docked as puppies, calculate the authors. And to prevent one tail amputation in spaniels, 320 spaniel puppies would need to be docked.
So, when we actually look at dogs coming into veterinary clinics, the number of tail injuries (and certainly of serious tail injuries) is much, much lower. Dogs with undocked tails may be twice as likely to suffer tail injuries (and this is significant) but dogs are extremely unlikely to suffer tail injuries in the first place. Certainly the risk of an injury requiring amputation is very low.
Edited to add remarks on Spinster's second post: the study the Canadian association is relying on is clearly inappropriate to the question of whether there's a utility argument for docking in working dogs, as it looked at the general population, not working dogs. The authors' conclusion that working status is not a significant factor may not be statistically supportable, given the low number of working dogs in the study, and the fact that this number included a number of breeds not normally docked. Indeed, given that the robustness of a dog's tail is arguably related to breed and that docking is done on a breed basis, I would suggest that looking at a general population of working dogs (n = 11 for case and 17 for controls) is simply junk.
There is a lack of good research on this, but the general conclusion we can draw is the risk of serious tail injuries is very low.
When lobbyists start working the sympathetic public, sensationalist news media, are unknowledgeable politicians get involved making it appear they are earning their big dollars the tax payers are donating to them. To them taking a three day old puppy and reducing the size of the tail is painful and traumatic to the puppy. It will not manner that studies over years show that there was rational for docking tails, and that the pain, and trauma in a pup are minimal to what a mature dog will occur.
It is easy for the agenda to be built against a sweet pup , that the weathered up mature dog that has seen hours a field behind a hunter..
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
Thanks. :)
None of those things are involved here. This is about vets reconciling their duty to promote the welfare of animals in their care.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDH
Phew, another good reason I don't live in Quebec. LOL.
I like having dogs with a docked tail. If cosmetics are what they are calling it, then I think all pug nosed breeds and toy breeds should be immediately banned and no longer bred...may as well say the same for unusually short legged ones too...and giant breeds while we are at it because of their health problems....see where this goes?
very well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
When I purchased my rottie, the breeder told me all they do is set a tie on the tail and it loses circulation and dies and falls off within a day, and the dog doesn't even notice... Maybe he was trying to sugar coat the process and telling me a story, but that scenario hardly seems traumatic... Compared to say, human circumcision, which really is traumatic:)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDH
I admit I prefer the dock for cosmetic reasons and unless it was proven to me to be incredibly stressful on the dog, would opt for it again, when the time comes to get another one one day. But I've been looking at pictures of Rottie's with tails and I would still get one of those if no other options where available as I really like the breed...
I've heard ear cropping is more brutal, but don't really know for sure... Not a fan of Doberman's anyhow, even though they come in part from Rottie stock.